Blogging the Brussels Way [Updated] | 39 comments (39 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Poorly informed (4.00 / 3)

IMO your question on poor information and mention of abysmal PR is the crux of the matter. There cannot be representation without dialogue. And transparent systems for EU dialogue do not exist. There is some level of contact at election time - and then all is forgotten for another 4 years.

I had a long discussion tonight concerning one of the Finnish political parties contending the 13 MEP seats allotted to Finland, in July. Most of this party's candidates will focus on particular regional or national issues in the hope of garnering votes - i.e. not very much concerned with the central issues of the EU.

The other major question I have noted before is the cost of a national campaign - perhaps 3 times that of a more localized parliamentary campaign. This will lead to increasing wooing of celebrities (who come with in-built national recognition) and thus a corresponding increase in amateurishness and a failure of hard-edged representation.

I fear that the EP will remain amateur ofr full of fails (and thus subservient to the EU bureaucracy) until the EP is given a greater say in the structure and conduct of the EU institutions. Until then it is faux-democracy.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 03:47:51 PM EST

Re: Poorly informed (4.00 / 2)

Ultimately the Presidents of the Commission and of the Council will have to be directly elected by the Parliament (and the two posts combined into one) to give the EU a real "face" of accountability and democracy. It's a slow process - there have been improvements since 1979 - and Lisbon would improve things a little further. But we have a long way to go.

I asked a question about national versus pan European issues dominating the campaigns. The consensus was that you are talking about 27 distinct elections, not one.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 04:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

27 elections (4.00 / 3)

Yes, it is a slow process, and I am not against evolution. I am only worried that citizens in those 27 nations will eventually lose interest in that evolution without better top-down communication, and more transparent involvement in decision-making.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 04:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poorly informed (4.00 / 3)

It can be even worse. The only way the EP election is making the news right now in France is because Sarko tried to stick two of his "minority" ministers there ; Rama Yade, who had displeased by being too vocal when foreign dictators came to visit, and Dati who was too clearly failing as Justice minister.

Dati, a formerly very close friend of Sarkozy, accepted, whereas the young Yade, who is clearly not as close to the president, refused.

That's not even French politics...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 07:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poorly informed (4.00 / 1)

the two posts combined into one

I think that's a very bad idea. A permanent President of the European Council is already problematic for making the Council even more influential (we discussed this a lot already), even if the EP picks its head (national governments would have a much stronger incentive to exert influence on MEPs), but your idea would permanently undermine the separation of powers.

give the EU a real "face" of accountability and democracy

I think EP election of the entire commission counts more in that field than that of one single man. (I still don't like Presidential democracy :) )

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 03:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poorly informed (4.00 / 1)

I add: if you really want one real face of accountability and democracy, you would have to advocate direct election of this Commission/Council President, not his/her indirect, EP election.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 03:22:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poorly informed (4.00 / 3)

That point was also raised, and I'm going to replicate someone's (don't know whose anymore) response.

I disagree with that. Except for France, all European countries have their executive formed on the basis of the parliament (well, even France does, largely). I don't think we should aim for a strongly dualistic system.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 04:13:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poorly informed (none / 1)

Only France has a directly elected executive Presidential system in Europe - Parliamentary democracy is the norm, and I would advocate that for the EU as well - particularly with such a fractured demos.

But I do think the EU lacks a "prime ministerial" figure who is ultimately accountable for what goes on - and visibly answerable to the Parliament. People just don't understand the separation of powers between the Parliament, Commission and Council and lack a personal or emotional "human" engagement with their leadership.

The US system IMHO on the other hand goes too far in the opposite direction - vesting almost messianic powers and expectations in one person. That can be very exciting and engaging if it all goes well - but it can also go very wrong...

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 08:14:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poorly informed (4.00 / 2)

Nitpick: Poland's President also has explicit executive roles. Probably Romania's, too. Russia's, Belarus's, Georgia's and Ukraine's, certainly.

People just don't understand the separation of powers

But those who set up a post should. A post is not all about the public perception. A Commission President answerable to the EP is enough. However, for a stronger sense of this accountability among the people, I think a change at the lower level is more important: an actual contest of ideas and for power between EP-parties, rather than consensus candidates of an eternal Grand Coalition. Otherwise, people won't get the sense that they can elect off a bad Face of Accountability even indirectly.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 01:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poorly informed (none / 1)

The UK system is as much a vote for an individual as for a party.

It's not quite the same as voting for a president, but the differences in practice aren't as obvious as perhaps they should be.

I suspect this isn't really that unusual in the EU.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Feb 3rd, 2009 at 05:31:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Blogging the Brussels Way [Updated] | 39 comments (39 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Speaking right: What an Taoiseach should say in Washington

Ambushing an Taoiseach

The problems with formal education

Net Zero Energy - March 2025

We do have the cards

Manipulating Irishness

Thomas Paine's Age of Reason

An Enchanted Isle

Recent Diaries

Ukraine Victory In Retreat

Ceasefire Negotiations Step by Step

17th of March

Ukraine Violated Human Rights in Odessa - 2014

Rutte In the Apprentice Theatre

Rearming Europe Peace Through More War

Keith Kellogg Is Out

Nordic States Join Baltics Again WWII Redux

Goodbye NATO/USA, Welcome Europe's E5

Zelensky and the Terror State Ukraine

EU Commissioner VDL In Full Panic Mode

The problems with formal education

The Battle for Kiev/Kyiv

VDL At the Crossroads of Europe - Part 1

The speech Micheál Martin should make in the White House:...

Either At the Table, Or Else On the Menu

A Happy AQ Warrior On Syrian Victory

Trump More Destructive Than Genocide Joe?

Terror HTS FF In Latakia, Syria

Speaking right: What an Taoiseach should say in Washington

Occasional Series